FemZone trial: a randomized phase II trial comparing neoadjuvant letrozole and zoledronic acid with letrozole in primary breast cancer patients

The effects of neoadjuvant zoledronic acid in breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To explore the effects of Zoledronic acid (ZA) in the neoadjuvant setting, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neoadjuvant therapy with or without ZA in breast cancer (BC). A systematic literature search was carried out by two reviewers independently on the basis of three electronic databases up to February 2022. Six RCTs with a total of 949 patients, comparing neoadjuvant therapy with or without ZA in BC were included. In the total population, adding ZA to the neoadjuvant setting didn't improved the pathological complete response (pCR) rates (Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.38, 95% CI 0.94-2.03, p = 0.10). However, subgroup analysis revealed that the addition of ZA resulted in an increased pCR rate in postmenopausal women (RR = 2.30, 95% CI 0.93-5.71, p = 0.07) and in patients with triple-negative BC (RR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.01-8.03, p = 0.05), although these results were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the additional ZA did not show benefits on objective response rate, breast-conserving surgery rate or recurrence rate. For mortality, however, the additional ZA resulting in worse outcome compared to the control group (RR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.10, p = 0.03). Our study suggested that addition of ZA to neoadjuvant therapy didn't improved the pCR rate. Further investigations are warranted in postmenopausal women and patients with triple-negative BC, since these subgroups might benefit from ZA treatment.

Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Clinical Practice: A Review

Importance

In clinical practice, neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is rarely used despite being an effective treatment modality able to downstage tumors and facilitate breast-conserving surgery.

Observations

Using data from studies conducted since 2000, we provide readers with a critical in-depth review on clinical aspects related to the application of NET in the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. This includes an overview of patient-selection criteria, regimen choice, treatment duration, evaluation of response by imaging, interpretation of pathology after treatment, and surgical considerations. Areas of controversy include the use of gene-expression tests for patient selection, treatment of premenopausal women, surgical management of the axilla after NET, and adjuvant systemic therapy decision-making, including the use of chemotherapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

NET is an optimal treatment modality for a considerable proportion of postmenopausal women diagnosed with HR-positive tumors. The treatment landscape for HR-positive breast cancer is evolving, with novel agents and the growing use of gene expression profiling to define treatment selection. As such, it is likely that NET use will increase and the practical considerations outlined here will become more important.

Update Breast Cancer 2020 Part 3 - Early Breast Cancer

The treatment of patients with early breast cancer has always been characterised by escalation by new therapies and de-escalation through identification of better treatment regimens or introduction of better tools to estimate prognosis. Efforts in some of these areas in the last few years have led to solid data. The results of the large studies of de-escalation through use of multi-gene tests are available, as are the results of some studies that investigated the new anti-HER2 substances T-DM1 and pertuzumab in the early treatment situation. Several large-scale studies examining the role of CDK4/6 inhibitors will soon be concluded so innovations can be anticipated in this area also. This review article will summarise and classify the results of the latest publications.

Extra-skeletal effects of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are pyrophosphate analogues widely used in diseases related to bone loss and increased bone turnover. Their high affinity for bone hydroxyapatite makes them ideal agents for bone diseases, while preventing them from reaching other cells and tissues. Data of the last decade, however, have demonstrated extra-skeletal tissue deposition and a variety of non-skeletal effects have been recently recognized. As such, BPs have been shown to exert anti-tumor, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory and anti-diabetic effects. In addition, new delivery systems (liposomes, nanoparticles, hydrogels) are being developed in an effort to expand BPs clinical application to extra-skeletal tissues and enhance their overall therapeutic spectrum and effectiveness. In the present review, we outline current data on extra-skeletal actions of bisphosphonates and attempt to unravel the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

A Phase II Randomized Study of Neoadjuvant Letrozole Plus Alpelisib for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer (NEO-ORB)

PURPOSE

Addition of alpelisib to fulvestrant significantly extended progression-free survival in PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced/metastatic breast cancer in the phase III SOLAR-1 study. The combination of alpelisib and letrozole also had promising activity in phase I studies of HR+ advanced/metastatic breast cancer. NEO-ORB aimed to determine whether addition of alpelisib to letrozole could increase response rates in the neoadjuvant setting.Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, T1c-T3 breast cancer were assigned to the PIK3CA-wild-type or PIK3CA-mutant cohort according to their tumor PIK3CA status, and randomized (1:1) to 2.5 mg/day letrozole with 300 mg/day alpelisib or placebo for 24 weeks. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and pathologic complete response (pCR) rate for both PIK3CA cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 257 patients were assigned to letrozole plus alpelisib (131 patients) or placebo (126 patients). Grade ≥3 adverse events (≥5% of patients) in the alpelisib arm were hyperglycemia (27%), rash (12%), and maculo-papular rash (8%). The primary objective was not met; ORR in the alpelisib versus placebo arm was 43% versus 45% and 63% versus 61% in the PIK3CA-mutant and wild-type cohorts, respectively. pCR rates were low in all groups. Decreases in Ki-67 were similar across treatment arms and cohorts. In PIK3CA-mutant tumors, alpelisib plus letrozole treatment induced a greater decrease in phosphorylated AKT versus placebo plus letrozole.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to initial results in advanced/metastatic disease, addition of alpelisib to 24-week neoadjuvant letrozole treatment did not improve response in patients with HR+ early breast cancer.

Efficacy and acceptability of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal sequence of endocrine therapy in a neoadjuvant setting for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer is unclear. Our study evaluated the efficacy and acceptability of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for HR+ breast cancer.

METHODS

We identified studies based on titles and abstracts that were published before 22 June 2018 in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials with at least one arm that evaluated the effectiveness of one or a combination of anastrozole, letrozole, palbociclib, tamoxifen, fulvestrant, abemaciclib, everolimus, gefitinib, ribociclib, taselisib, and exemestane. We pooled effect sizes using the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% credibility interval (95% CrI). The primary outcomes were response rate and treatment completion.

RESULTS

Our network meta-analysis included 3,306 participants and 16 eligible studies, which assessed 15 treatments. In terms of response rates, compared with letrozole combined therapy, tamoxifen was associated with a significant reduction in response rate (OR, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.85; OR, 0.32; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.80; OR, 0.26; 95% CrI, 0.09-0.83; and OR, 0.30; 95% CrI, 0.09-0.96; for letrozole plus everolimus, letrozole plus taselisib, letrozole plus zoledronic acid, and letrozole plus lapatinib, respectively). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves ranking, letrozole plus zoledronic acid was associated with the highest rate of response (87.6%), followed by letrozole plus lapatinib (85.2%), and letrozole plus taselisib (79.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, our study established that letrozole plus zoledronic acid may be an optimal treatment based on its current rank in a neoadjuvant setting for HR+ breast cancer.

Update Breast Cancer 2018 (Part 1) - Primary Breast Cancer and Biomarkers

This summary provides an overview of how new therapies or new aspects of established therapies relate to the latest findings. Neoadjuvant therapy, local therapy, new aspects of systemic therapy, and prognostic and predictive factors are presented. In the neoadjuvant setting, the association between pathological complete response (pCR) and prognosis is still of interest as is the identification of new molecular predictors for new therapies such as CDK4/6 inhibitors. As regards surgical treatment, the target is still to reduce the aggressiveness of surgery. To achieve this, a better understanding particularly of ductal carcinoma in situ is required. With regard to systemic therapy, more data on the best combinations and therapy sequences for existing therapies is available. Finally, the use of prognostic and predictive factors may help to avoid overtreatment and ensure that patients only receive therapies which have been shown to be effective for their specific condition and have fewer side effects.

Combined effects of neoadjuvant letrozole and zoledronic acid on γδT cells in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant bisphosphonates lead to better prognosis in postmenopausal breast cancer. However, the association between clinical outcomes and immune modulation by them is still unclear.

METHODS

In this prospective, open-label phase II study, postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early-stage breast cancer received neoadjuvant letrozole (LET) for one month, followed by treatment with a single dose of zoledronic acid. The patients underwent an additional 5 months of treatment with LET prior to surgery. The primary endpoint was the tumor objective response rate (ORR) determined by diameter via MRI. The association between the ORR and γδT cell frequencies was assessed as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Out of sixty patients, 55 patients were evaluable for response by MRI. The ORR for LET with zoledronic acid was 38.2% (21/55), which was comparable to that of historical controls (45%). A decrease in the frequency of the Vδ2 T cell subset was observed throughout treatment, and Vδ2 T cells were activated for 6 months. In planned subgroup analyses, patients with low frequencies of Vδ2 T cells prior to zoledronic acid infusion experienced a favorable tumor response compared to those with high frequencies (59.3% [16/27] vs 17.9% [5/28], p = .002). There were no serious adverse events with this treatment regimen.

CONCLUSION

These results showed that neoadjuvant LET with zoledronic acid could not achieve overall effect for local tumor response. However, patients with a low frequency of γδ T cells would benefit from the treatment including zoledronic acid. (UMIN 000008701).

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).

SEARCH METHODS

In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumors of the breast are generally highly responsive to endocrine treatment. Although endocrine therapy is the mainstay of adjuvant treatment for ER+ breast cancer, the role of endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant setting is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) on the response rate and the rate of breast conservation surgery (BCS) for ER+ breast cancer.

Data Sources

Based on PRISMA guidelines, a librarian-led search of PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE was performed to identify eligible trials published from inception to May 15, 2015. The search was performed in May 2015.

Study Selection

Inclusion criteria were prospective, randomized, neoadjuvant clinical trials that reported response rates with at least 1 arm incorporating NET (n = 20). Two authors independently analyzed the studies for inclusion.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Pooled odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, and P values were estimated for end points using the fixed- and random-effects statistical model.

Results

The analysis included 20 studies with 3490 unique patients. Compared with combination chemotherapy, NET as monotherapy with aromatase inhibitors had a similar clinical response rate (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.50-2.35; P = .85; n = 378), radiological response rate (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.92-2.07; P = .12; n = 378), and BCS rate (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41-1.03; P = .07; n = 334) but with lower toxicity. Aromatase inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher clinical response rate (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.36-2.10; P < .001; n = 1352), radiological response rate (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.89; P < .001; n = 1418), and BCS rate (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.24-2.12; P < .001; n = 918) compared with tamoxifen. Dual combination therapy with growth factor pathway inhibitors was associated with a higher radiological response rate (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43; P = .03; n = 355), but not clinical response rate (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07; P = .11; n = 537), compared with endocrine monotherapy. The incidence of pathologic complete response was low (<10%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, even as monotherapy, is associated with similar response rates as neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy but with significantly lower toxicity, suggesting that NET needs to be reconsidered as a potential option in the appropriate setting. Additional research is needed to develop rational NET combinations and predictive biomarkers to personalize the optimal neoadjuvant strategy for ER+ breast cancer.

Skeletal metastases from breast cancer: pathogenesis of bone tropism and treatment strategy

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common female cancer worldwide with approximately 10 % of new cases metastatic at diagnosis and 20-50 % of patients with early BC who will eventually develop metastatic disease. Bone is the most frequent site of colonisation and the development of skeletal metastases depends on a complex multistep process, from dissemination and survival of malignant cells into circulation to the actual homing and metastases formation inside bone. Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) can be detected in bone marrow in approximately 30 % of BC patients, likely reflecting the presence of minimal residual disease that would eventually account for subsequent metastatic disease. Patients with bone marrow DTCs have poorer overall survival compared with patients without them. Although bone-only metastatic disease seems to have a rather indolent behavior compared to visceral disease, bone metastases can cause severe and debilitating effects, including pain, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia and pathologic fractures. Delivering an appropriate treatment is therefore paramount and ideally it should require interdisciplinary care. Multiple options are currently available, from bisphosphonates to new drugs targeting RANK ligand and radiotherapy. In this review we describe the mechanisms underlying bone colonization and provide an update on existing systemic and locoregional treatments for bone metastases.

Bisphosphonates for cancer treatment: Mechanisms of action and lessons from clinical trials

A growing body of evidence points toward an important anti-cancer effect of bisphosphonates, a group of inexpensive, safe, potent, and long-term stable pharmacologicals that are widely used as osteoporosis drugs. To date, they are already used in the prevention of complications of bone metastases. Because the bisphosphonates can also reduce mortality in among other multiple myeloma, breast, and prostate cancer patients, they are now thoroughly studied in oncology. In particular, the more potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have the potential to improve prognosis. The first part of this review will elaborate on the direct and indirect anti-tumoral effects of bisphosphonates, including induction of tumor cell apoptosis, inhibition of tumor cell adhesion and invasion, anti-angiogenesis, synergism with anti-neoplastic drugs, and enhancement of immune surveillance (e.g., through activation of γδ T cells and targeting macrophages). In the second part, we shed light on the current clinical position of bisphosphonates in the treatment of hematological and solid malignancies, as well as on ongoing and completed clinical trials investigating the therapeutic effect of bisphosphonates in cancer. Based on these recent data, the role of bisphosphonates is expected to further expand in the near future outside the field of osteoporosis and to open up new avenues in the treatment of malignancies.

The effects of zoledronate on monocyte-derived dendritic cells from melanoma patients differ depending on the clinical stage of the disease

Zoledronic acid has shown indirect anticancer effects on angiogenesis, the tumor microenvironment and immune responses. Its immunological action is exerted, at least in part, via its modulating properties. The aim of this study was to investigate the in vitro effects of zoledronic acid on the dendritic cells of melanoma patients. Peripheral blood samples were collected from 26 patients with melanoma and 11 healthy donors. Dendritic cells were derived from purified monocytes, and zoledronic acid (ZA) was added on the first day of culture. The phenotype and function of the generated cells were evaluated by flow cytometry. The ZA-treated monocytes from patients with early-stage disease generated DCs characterized by reduced endocytic activity and increased allostimulatory capacity compared with the untreated samples, allowing restoration of the DC function observed in normal subjects. In contrast, the ZA-treated monocytes from patients at stage III generated cells with higher CD14 antigen expression and endocytosis than the untreated samples. Therefore, in melanoma patients, the in vitro ZA effects differ according to the progression of the disease. In addition, our preliminary results appear to suggest that ZA effects are also influenced by the expression of CD14 antigen, indicating that the DC phenotype together with clinical characteristics must be considered in the choice of patients to be treated with ZA. Our work focus on the effect of ZA on monocyte-derived DCs from melanoma patients, showing that the effects of therapeutic doses of this drug might be mediated at least in part by modulation of myeloid cell function.

Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: maximizing pathologic complete response rates to improve prognosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neoadjuvant therapy is very often an adequate alternative to adjuvant therapy. This review summarizes the recent advances made in the area of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer. The focus will lie on recently published clinical trials, but will not further highlight surgical, imaging and radio-oncological issues related to neoadjuvant therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Within the past year, it has been discussed if neoadjuvant treatment can be used as a faster way to get access to new therapies, based on new data in HER2+ breast cancer, suggesting a higher pathological complete response rate when a dual anti-HER2 therapy was used. Nevertheless, this higher pathological complete response rate does not necessarily always translate into a better survival. In triple negative breast cancer, carboplatin could be identified as an asset for patients, especially in patients with gBRCA mutations. However, mature long-term data are still missing. The neoadjuvant approach is ideal to identify new biomarkers which predict response or resistance to the given treatment. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and PIK3CA mutations are amongst the most promising markers.

SUMMARY

Neoadjuvant treatment should be considered for all patients with HER2-positive or triple negative breast cancer. Clinical trials in this setting are currently investigating new approaches.

Survival benefit of zoledronic Acid in postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving aromatase inhibitors

Purpose

A growing body of evidence indicates that zoledronic acid (ZA) can improve the clinical outcome in patients with breast cancer and low estrogen levels. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the survival benefit of ZA administration in postmenopausal Korean women with breast cancer who were also receiving aromatase inhibitors.

Methods

Between January 2004 and December 2010, 235 postmenopausal breast cancer patients undergoing aromatase inhibitor therapy were investigated. All patients were postmenopausal, as confirmed by laboratory tests. Of these patients, 77 received adjuvant upfront ZA for at least 1 year in addition to conventional adjuvant treatment. The remaining 158 patients never received ZA and were treated according to the St. Gallen guidelines.

Results

The baseline characteristics for ZA treatment were not different between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 62 months, and the patients who received ZA in addition to aromatase inhibitors showed a better recurrence-free survival compared to those who received aromatase inhibitors alone (p=0.035). On multivariate analysis, the patients who received ZA showed a better recurrence-free survival independent of the tumor size, nodal status, progesterone receptor, and histological grade. For this model, Harrell c index was 0.743. The hazard ratio of ZA use for recurrence-free survival was 0.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.99).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that upfront use of ZA as part of adjuvant treatment can offer a survival benefit to postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving aromatase inhibitor treatment.